THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS SUPPORT OF ABORTION SERVICES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS
Observation 1 is Competition
The CP competes through the NB's, any perm would link.
Observation 2 is Solvency
1. NGO’S CAN RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE U.S. IF THEY PROVIDE ABORTIONS IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT THAN FAMILY PLANNING
Covenant News, September 09, 2004, “Family Planning - An Exercise in Doublespeak,” Covenant News.com
The current Mexico City Policy states, "To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs ." [e(10)(ii)] [emphasis may be added to quotes throughout] Note: As you go through this information, please remember that there is NO period after the word "abortion" in these written policies. In addition, the doublespeak loophole applies only to those foreign NGOs which lobby, promote or perform "abortions as a method of family planning."On January 22, 2001, President Bush issued a Memorandum directing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, requiring non-governmental organizations "to agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."• 1 • Bush did not sign an official Presidential Proclamation or Executive Order restoring the Mexico City Policy, as was reported by some of the press, but instead sent a memorandum to USAID. Why did Bush send a memo to USAID? Because one job of USAID is to receive grant applications from non-governmental organizations (NGO) attempting to get federal tax dollars to pay for their particular proposals or re-distribution plans, and then approve federal expenditures to those NGOs. (Scroll down to see more detailed information about how USAID redistributes billions in taxdollars around the world to NGOs and many other entities.)• 2 • The Mexico City Policy applies only to foreign, non-governmental organizations, which means the Mexico City Policy does not apply to organizations receiving federal funds to perform abortions in the United States. • 3 • The Mexico City Policy does not apply to foreign governments, or how foreign governments use US tax dollars to perform abortions.• 4 • The only requirement the Mexico City Policy places upon NGOs "as a condition of their receipt of federal funds" is that they "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The Mexico City Policy does not stop the funding of abortion, it attempts to stop U.S. funds from being used by NGOs to lobby the world with family planning rhetoric. In the words of one lawmaker "we're not going to fund their printing presses." But, at the same time, the federal government funds organizations doing abortions in the United States all the time. • 5 • The devil's in the details. Interpretation, audit and enforcement are key. Ingar Brueggemann, the Director General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), representing its 150 FPAs (Family Planning Associations) in 182 countries worldwide reiterates that, "It is a principal position of IPPF policy that abortion is not a method of family planning." Lists available from their group were "compiled from documents of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; USAID; the World Bank; UNFPA; The International Projects Assistance League; International Women's Health Coalition; the Older Women's League; Population Action International; the Rockefeller Foundation; and the World Health Organization" maintaining that "reproductive health services should include: [list of 52 items including] Abortion-related Services, Management of complications, Post-abortion family planning, Improved sex education and family planning services where abortion is restricted, Abortion, and Family
No Family Planning CP (2/2)
planning/methods."The United States federal government gives billions of US tax dollars a year to fund overseas abortions. The tax-dollars go to the largest abortion providers in the world -- as long as they say "abortion is not a method of family planning."
2. SOLVES CASE – THEIR ADVANTAGES STEM FROM ABORTION EDUCATION AND SAFE PRACTICES. THE U.S. CAN FUND THESE PROGRAMS AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY PLANNING.
3. DOESN’T LINK TO THE NB’S – WE DO NOT EXPLICITLY OVERTURN THE GAG RULE OR MANDATE U.S. FUNDING.
FAMILY PLANNING INITIATIVES IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN AID WERE FOUNDED ON THE BASIS OF EUGENIC, COLONIAL POPULATION CONTROL. EMPERICALLY, THIS GAVE EXCUSES FOR MASSIVE INCREASES IN STATE CONTROL IN ALL AREAS.
Matthew Connelly , Faculty Fellow, Department of History, Columbia University 2006
“Seeing beyond the State: The Population Control Movement and the Problem of Sovereignty* “ Past & Present 193 (2006) 197-233
In December 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower called a meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) to discuss foreign aid. He said that they had neglected what he viewed as the looming threat of the future: In all our discussions of the problem of underdeveloped countries and the kind of assistance which we could effectively provide them, we had not faced up to what was really the most serious problem, namely, that of exploding population growths. As far as he could see, continued the President, the only solution to this problem throughout the world was finding an effective two cent contraceptive. Eisenhower thought that 'something drastic had to be done to solve this problem', though 'he certainly did not know how to get started on this solution and he furthermore could not himself get it started'.1 Eisenhower called for new ideas. He had already asked one of the men present, General William Draper, to lead a presidential commission on US foreign aid. Draper eventually managed to persuade the other members, including influential figures such as Joseph M. Dodge, General Al Gruenther and John J. McCloy, that the United States should help poor countries reduce fertility rates.2 The problem continued to preoccupy the President. In another NSC meeting, he confided that it was 'a constant worry to him and from time to time reduced him to despair'.3 But when a reporter asked him if he agreed [End Page 197] that the United States should supply contraceptives, Eisenhower rejected the very idea: 'I cannot imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or governmental activity or function or responsibility'.4 It was only after leaving office that he backed population control, agreeing to serve as honorary co-chairman, with Harry Truman, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He complained that, with the proliferating array of welfare programmes, including the beginning of federally funded birth control, the United States was 'spending money with one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentives for increasing production by the ignorant, feeble-minded or lazy'.5 For many scholars Eisenhower's position would appear anomalous, and not just because of his seemingly anachronistic support for eugenics. To them, 'biopolitics' was not just a proper activity of nineteenth- and twentieth-century governments. Efforts to shape the quantity, 'quality' and mobility of populations constitute the quintessential state-building project. These scholars have offered so many reasons for the coming of population control that it has begun to appear overdetermined. With the proliferation of mass conscription systems, comparing national birth rates offered a means to predict the future correlation of forces.6 The increasing responsibilities of states in social welfare — taking on and further expanding functions once fulfilled by municipalities and charities — created incentives to institutionalize citizenship, register aliens and expel those considered a public charge or public danger. This process accelerated up to the close of the nineteenth century, as the number of poor migrants increased, together with concerns about crime [End Page 198] and contagion.7 The collection of population statistics is said to have become so obsessive as to constitute a 'totalitarian menace', especially with the growing influence of eugenics in the early twentieth century.8 This trend is thought to have encompassed the imperial possessions of European powers, as censuses and other statistical projects loomed large in 'the colonial imagination'.9 Much of this work has been inspired by Michel Foucault's insight that the concept of population, with measurable properties amenable to intervention, created a field of contention, though one in which states gradually assumed responsibility for governing both the social body and the individual bodies of subjects.10 Yet if scholars have shown that states had compelling reasons to control populations, they have not explained why state officials were so slow to recognize and act on them. Prosecutors and judges in the United States and Europe were generally reluctant to enforce laws against birth control and abortion.11 Population control measures were typically urged on states from the outside, at least initially. In the United States, Australia, Canada and Germany labour groups — not state officials — were the driving force in demanding stricter regulation of [End Page 199] immigration.12
Observation 1 is Competition
The CP competes through the NB's, any perm would link.
Observation 2 is Solvency
1. NGO’S CAN RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE U.S. IF THEY PROVIDE ABORTIONS IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT THAN FAMILY PLANNING
Covenant News, September 09, 2004, “Family Planning - An Exercise in Doublespeak,” Covenant News.com
The current Mexico City Policy states, "To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs ." [e(10)(ii)] [emphasis may be added to quotes throughout] Note: As you go through this information, please remember that there is NO period after the word "abortion" in these written policies. In addition, the doublespeak loophole applies only to those foreign NGOs which lobby, promote or perform "abortions as a method of family planning."On January 22, 2001, President Bush issued a Memorandum directing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, requiring non-governmental organizations "to agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."• 1 • Bush did not sign an official Presidential Proclamation or Executive Order restoring the Mexico City Policy, as was reported by some of the press, but instead sent a memorandum to USAID. Why did Bush send a memo to USAID? Because one job of USAID is to receive grant applications from non-governmental organizations (NGO) attempting to get federal tax dollars to pay for their particular proposals or re-distribution plans, and then approve federal expenditures to those NGOs. (Scroll down to see more detailed information about how USAID redistributes billions in taxdollars around the world to NGOs and many other entities.)• 2 • The Mexico City Policy applies only to foreign, non-governmental organizations, which means the Mexico City Policy does not apply to organizations receiving federal funds to perform abortions in the United States. • 3 • The Mexico City Policy does not apply to foreign governments, or how foreign governments use US tax dollars to perform abortions.• 4 • The only requirement the Mexico City Policy places upon NGOs "as a condition of their receipt of federal funds" is that they "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The Mexico City Policy does not stop the funding of abortion, it attempts to stop U.S. funds from being used by NGOs to lobby the world with family planning rhetoric. In the words of one lawmaker "we're not going to fund their printing presses." But, at the same time, the federal government funds organizations doing abortions in the United States all the time. • 5 • The devil's in the details. Interpretation, audit and enforcement are key. Ingar Brueggemann, the Director General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), representing its 150 FPAs (Family Planning Associations) in 182 countries worldwide reiterates that, "It is a principal position of IPPF policy that abortion is not a method of family planning." Lists available from their group were "compiled from documents of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; USAID; the World Bank; UNFPA; The International Projects Assistance League; International Women's Health Coalition; the Older Women's League; Population Action International; the Rockefeller Foundation; and the World Health Organization" maintaining that "reproductive health services should include: [list of 52 items including] Abortion-related Services, Management of complications, Post-abortion family planning, Improved sex education and family planning services where abortion is restricted, Abortion, and Family
No Family Planning CP (2/2)
planning/methods."The United States federal government gives billions of US tax dollars a year to fund overseas abortions. The tax-dollars go to the largest abortion providers in the world -- as long as they say "abortion is not a method of family planning."
2. SOLVES CASE – THEIR ADVANTAGES STEM FROM ABORTION EDUCATION AND SAFE PRACTICES. THE U.S. CAN FUND THESE PROGRAMS AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY PLANNING.
3. DOESN’T LINK TO THE NB’S – WE DO NOT EXPLICITLY OVERTURN THE GAG RULE OR MANDATE U.S. FUNDING.
FAMILY PLANNING INITIATIVES IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN AID WERE FOUNDED ON THE BASIS OF EUGENIC, COLONIAL POPULATION CONTROL. EMPERICALLY, THIS GAVE EXCUSES FOR MASSIVE INCREASES IN STATE CONTROL IN ALL AREAS.
Matthew Connelly , Faculty Fellow, Department of History, Columbia University 2006
“Seeing beyond the State: The Population Control Movement and the Problem of Sovereignty* “ Past & Present 193 (2006) 197-233
In December 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower called a meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) to discuss foreign aid. He said that they had neglected what he viewed as the looming threat of the future: In all our discussions of the problem of underdeveloped countries and the kind of assistance which we could effectively provide them, we had not faced up to what was really the most serious problem, namely, that of exploding population growths. As far as he could see, continued the President, the only solution to this problem throughout the world was finding an effective two cent contraceptive. Eisenhower thought that 'something drastic had to be done to solve this problem', though 'he certainly did not know how to get started on this solution and he furthermore could not himself get it started'.1 Eisenhower called for new ideas. He had already asked one of the men present, General William Draper, to lead a presidential commission on US foreign aid. Draper eventually managed to persuade the other members, including influential figures such as Joseph M. Dodge, General Al Gruenther and John J. McCloy, that the United States should help poor countries reduce fertility rates.2 The problem continued to preoccupy the President. In another NSC meeting, he confided that it was 'a constant worry to him and from time to time reduced him to despair'.3 But when a reporter asked him if he agreed [End Page 197] that the United States should supply contraceptives, Eisenhower rejected the very idea: 'I cannot imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or governmental activity or function or responsibility'.4 It was only after leaving office that he backed population control, agreeing to serve as honorary co-chairman, with Harry Truman, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He complained that, with the proliferating array of welfare programmes, including the beginning of federally funded birth control, the United States was 'spending money with one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentives for increasing production by the ignorant, feeble-minded or lazy'.5 For many scholars Eisenhower's position would appear anomalous, and not just because of his seemingly anachronistic support for eugenics. To them, 'biopolitics' was not just a proper activity of nineteenth- and twentieth-century governments. Efforts to shape the quantity, 'quality' and mobility of populations constitute the quintessential state-building project. These scholars have offered so many reasons for the coming of population control that it has begun to appear overdetermined. With the proliferation of mass conscription systems, comparing national birth rates offered a means to predict the future correlation of forces.6 The increasing responsibilities of states in social welfare — taking on and further expanding functions once fulfilled by municipalities and charities — created incentives to institutionalize citizenship, register aliens and expel those considered a public charge or public danger. This process accelerated up to the close of the nineteenth century, as the number of poor migrants increased, together with concerns about crime [End Page 198] and contagion.7 The collection of population statistics is said to have become so obsessive as to constitute a 'totalitarian menace', especially with the growing influence of eugenics in the early twentieth century.8 This trend is thought to have encompassed the imperial possessions of European powers, as censuses and other statistical projects loomed large in 'the colonial imagination'.9 Much of this work has been inspired by Michel Foucault's insight that the concept of population, with measurable properties amenable to intervention, created a field of contention, though one in which states gradually assumed responsibility for governing both the social body and the individual bodies of subjects.10 Yet if scholars have shown that states had compelling reasons to control populations, they have not explained why state officials were so slow to recognize and act on them. Prosecutors and judges in the United States and Europe were generally reluctant to enforce laws against birth control and abortion.11 Population control measures were typically urged on states from the outside, at least initially. In the United States, Australia, Canada and Germany labour groups — not state officials — were the driving force in demanding stricter regulation of [End Page 199] immigration.12